The Review

All posts, comments andstatements made on IR are those of the authors only. Any disputes must be addressed to the writers, who are solely responsible for their posts, comments and statements. We reserve the right to deny or remove comments. Content may not be used without permission of the author.

Wednesday, August 20, 2014

EPA Head Admits New CO2 Restrictions Not About Climate

WASHINGTON DC - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (photo above) has admitted in Senate hearings that the recently announced restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with reducing pollution. Instead, said McCarthy, EPA imposed the restrictions based on a belief that imposing expensive renewable energy on the electricity marketplace will stimulate the economy.

“The great thing about this proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control,” McCarthy told the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee July 23. “It’s about increased efficiency at our plants. It’s about investment in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”

According to Bonner Cohen, McCarthy repeatedly emphasized that EPA views its rule as an investment opportunity for the business community, while downplaying the cost it would impose on consumers.

“This is an investment strategy that will not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design,” she said.

However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a report finding EPA’s proposal will cost the U.S. economy $50 billion per year through 2020. That is the equivalent of $500 per household per year.

Comments

EPA Head Admits New CO2 Restrictions Not About Climate

WASHINGTON DC - EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy (photo above) has admitted in Senate hearings that the recently announced restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions have nothing to do with reducing pollution. Instead, said McCarthy, EPA imposed the restrictions based on a belief that imposing expensive renewable energy on the electricity marketplace will stimulate the economy.

“The great thing about this proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control,” McCarthy told the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee July 23. “It’s about increased efficiency at our plants. It’s about investment in renewables and clean energy. It’s about investments in people’s ability to lower their electricity bills by getting good, clean, efficient appliances, homes, rental units.”

According to Bonner Cohen, McCarthy repeatedly emphasized that EPA views its rule as an investment opportunity for the business community, while downplaying the cost it would impose on consumers.

“This is an investment strategy that will not just reduce carbon pollution but will position the United States to continue to grow economically in every state, based on their own design,” she said.

However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a report finding EPA’s proposal will cost the U.S. economy $50 billion per year through 2020. That is the equivalent of $500 per household per year.